In recent days, there have been a few sporadic reports about dogs’ possibly infallible ability to detect breast cancer with their noses.

It’s early yet. No doubt it would take years of massive studies before anyone in the healthcare industry would admit creation’s superiority over man-made technologies. And considering what’s at stake for those already invested in this discipline, it’s possible that we’ll never hear much more about it. After all, the BBC reported on this amazing canine capability over three years ago, and the corporate media haven’t exactly been jumping up and down about it.

And so we wait. But in the meantime, I find statements like this very curious: “The technique is simple, non-invasive and cheap, and may revolutionise cancer detection in countries where mammograms are hard to come by.”

“In countries where mammograms are hard to come by”?

But according to the specialists at Susan G. Komen, mammography demonstrates a sensitivity of only about 84% for detecting breast cancer. And its specificity is relatively low; if you’re a woman who’s been faithfully following the experts’ recommendations for 10 years or more, your chances of experiencing a false-positive result is 50-60%. Which means that many obedient women end up experiencing unnecessary anxiety and follow-up testing over the course of their lives.

So if these phenomenal canine results are borne out, why wouldn’t you make 100% accurate doggie detection available everywhere, not just where mammograms are “hard to come by”?